Understanding and Applying the Genealogical Proof Standard

[lupaglupa]

Anyone who does genealogy as more than the most casual of hobbies has come across one of those trees. The ones where the creator added every hint they got, without verifying information. The one where the creator abandoned all common sense and just put nonsense online. Worst of all - the one where a creator put together a reasonable but flawed tree and managed to convince hundreds, if not thousands, of people to copy their incorrect information into a new tree.

Genealogy is often listed as the second most popular hobby in the United States. While that statistic has been frequently challenged, the fact is that many people in the US have an interest in learning about and documenting their family trees. This interest isn't new - people have been looking at their family history since not long after the establishment of the United States. Just how people collected and arranged the information they found about their families has varied over time. In the 1960s the Board for Certification of Genealogists BCG) was created to set standards for those working in the genealogy field. This group in the 1990s established the Genealogical Proof Standard (GPS) as a guide to researchers.

Though the GPS has been modified somewhat since its initial drafting, its core concepts have remained the same. Genealogists, like other historians, should consistently work to document their findings, using accepted standards for inclusion of materials. The GPS has five components:

1. Reasonably exhaustive research.
2. Complete and accurate source citations.
3. Thorough analysis and correlation.
4. Resolution of conflicting evidence.
5. Soundly written conclusion based on the strongest evidence.

Application of these standards ensures that genealogy research is truthful, useful, and fair to the history of those being documented. That many people working in the field can't be bothered to address even one of these standards, much less all of them, is hugely frustrating. And yes, I have a reason for this vent! But, you guessed that at the beginning

You can read more about the BCG and their excellent work at their website -

Home - Board for Certification of Genealogists

Fostering public confidence in genealogy as a respected branch of history by promoting competence and ethics among genealogists, and by publicly recognizing those who demonstrate ability to meet the Genealogical Proof Standard and honor the board’s ethical code.

bcgcertification.org

 

[nc native]

I loved your post! I do accuse Ancestry.com of aiding and abetting many of the trees where the creator is bereft of common sense with the flood of hints that are not relevant to the person you are searching when you use their search function these days. I've had a bone to pick with Ancestry since they acquired Rootsweb and practically dismantled it and their search feature is misleading and useless when you are researching an individual unless you pay careful attention to the hints you get.

 

[donna]

You do have to be so careful about the Trees. So many have misleading info. They have nothing as a source. I never put anything down until I verify. It has taken me years to work out some things. But I keep at it.

 

[Allyn]

I cringe when someone says they just "love" Ancestry and do all their research on that site. All I can say to such a comment is to use critical thinking before accepting anything submitted to that site; if it looks funny or a little off, it probably is, and further research is needed. And insist on documentation, or provide a darn good circumstantial case. Use some common sense, folks!

 

[13 IL Cav & 64 GA Inf]

Anyone who does genealogy as more than the most casual of hobbies has come across one of those trees. The ones where the creator added every hint they got, without verifying information. The one where the creator abandoned all common sense and just put nonsense online. Worst of all - the one where a creator put together a reasonable but flawed tree and managed to convince hundreds, if not thousands, of people to copy their incorrect information into a new tree.

Genealogy is often listed as the second most popular hobby in the United States. While that statistic has been frequently challenged, the fact is that many people in the US have an interest in learning about and documenting their family trees. This interest isn't new - people have been looking at their family history since not long after the establishment of the United States. Just how people collected and arranged the information they found about their families has varied over time. In the 1960s the Board for Certification of Genealogists BCG) was created to set standards for those working in the genealogy field. This group in the 1990s established the Genealogical Proof Standard (GPS) as a guide to researchers.

Though the GPS has been modified somewhat since its initial drafting, its core concepts have remained the same. Genealogists, like other historians, should consistently work to document their findings, using accepted standards for inclusion of materials. The GPS has five components:

1. Reasonably exhaustive research.
2. Complete and accurate source citations.
3. Thorough analysis and correlation.
4. Resolution of conflicting evidence.
5. Soundly written conclusion based on the strongest evidence.

Application of these standards ensures that genealogy research is truthful, useful, and fair to the history of those being documented. That many people working in the field can't be bothered to address even one of these standards, much less all of them, is hugely frustrating. And yes, I have a reason for this vent! But, you guessed that at the beginning

You can read more about the BCG and their excellent work at their website -

Home - Board for Certification of Genealogists

Fostering public confidence in genealogy as a respected branch of history by promoting competence and ethics among genealogists, and by publicly recognizing those who demonstrate ability to meet the Genealogical Proof Standard and honor the board’s ethical code.

bcgcertification.org

I have been to literally dozens of genealogy meetings and seminars, and what you posted rings true indeed.

 

[35th MA InfRegt]

I cringe when someone says they just "love" Ancestry and do all their research on that site. All I can say to such a comment is to use critical thinking before accepting anything submitted to that site; if it looks funny or a little off, it probably is, and further research is needed. And insist on documentation, or provide a darn good circumstantial case. Use some common sense, folks!

I actually abandoned Ancestry two decades ago because the search function was virtually useless. I did find the archival side of Ancestry useful for my purposes at that time, but I never wasted any time on the "Trees". And I agree, use some common sense about this stuff.

 

[John Winn]

I'm a "show me the evidence" type so mostly use Ancestry (and to a much lesser extent FamilySearch) to just accumulate actual evidence. It's particularly useful at the beginning when you just need things like census, marriage, birth, death, basic military, probate and the like. Most people who use those types of sites don't have any real background nor do they read a how-to book or watch any YouTube videos. Findagrave is also largely populated by people who make the same kinds of errors.

That said, I did over the years manage to connect to real relatives of mine and of others I researched who had information not available anywhere else (e.g. family letters, photos, bibles). My point is that while one does need to be very careful it is possible to find correct and useful trees so I wouldn't say never look at trees. But like watching AI it's not too hard to see if a tree might be helpful: do all those in the tree have documentation ? how well does the tree match what you already have verified ? are there photos ? will the owner respond to a message ?

One mistake I think many make is to think that everything's now on line and you just do some searches and you can build a pyramid. That's just not true. One often needs to do things like find books (e.g. old county histories), contact historical societies, maybe contact institutions like churches or schools, the national archives, look for collections of old newspapers (there are many beyond just Newspapers.com), and maybe hire somebody who has access to brick and mortar repositories such as libraries of record or county court houses.

The rules the previous generations came up with still apply; use them.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

I cringe when someone says they just "love" Ancestry and do all their research on that site.

I love Ancestry.com and the idea of doing genealogy in the before times without it, or something similar, is almost inconceivable to me.

That said, I do recognize there are limits and false positives. I've seen some occasional wacky coincidences where two people of similar names and birth & death years can be mixed up. I've also found questionable matches that subsequent searching revealed really were the same person.

Newspapers.com and similar sites are a huge resource, genealogy or otherwise.

Things like Ancestry show the uses and shortcomings of AI, and the extreme naivety some have about them.

 

[Allyn]

As I have said many times before, probably 3/4 of the available resource material in my area has NOT been digitized. Dependence on Ancestry or similar sites means missing out on tons of really vital and useful material. Yes, you have to do the hands-on research but it's well worth it, and if you are a research junkie, it's fun!

 

[DaveBrt]

I finished the vast majority of my main line's research in the 1980's. I made many photocopies, but naturally had/have no links to the current locations of the documents. I do not choose to use my remaining time retracing my research so that someone can see what I found; there are no hidden facts to be discovered in my work.

I do research on Familysearch.org and keep my correct tree on Family Tree Maker on my local computers. I have made some attempts to correct blatant errors in the Family Search tree, but Family Search refuses to get involved in correcting errors -- they say we are a community and should work together to correct errors. Unfortunately, many bad trees are from people who will not respond to emails regarding even obvious errors (same woman giving birth to two sons six months apart and 500 miles apart in the very early 1800's; the correct son had extensive documentation for generations, while the incorrect one had no documentation).

"Community" only works when the members are devoted to accuracy. Too many trees are compiled to "prove" ancestry from someone far in the past, with no care about accuracy.

 

[lupaglupa]

Do not get me started on people who are both too lazy to do real research and too ornery to correct the mistakes they make. A plague on genealogy.

 

[major bill]

My wife for years was a proffional genealogist. She helped establish the standards of conduct for Michigan proffional genealogists. I sure she could tell stories of bad genealogy.

 

[13 IL Cav & 64 GA Inf]

I finished the vast majority of my main line's research in the 1980's. I made many photocopies, but naturally had/have no links to the current locations of the documents. I do not choose to use my remaining time retracing my research so that someone can see what I found; there are no hidden facts to be discovered in my work.

I do research on Familysearch.org and keep my correct tree on Family Tree Maker on my local computers. I have made some attempts to correct blatant errors in the Family Search tree, but Family Search refuses to get involved in correcting errors -- they say we are a community and should work together to correct errors. Unfortunately, many bad trees are from people who will not respond to emails regarding even obvious errors (same woman giving birth to two sons six months apart and 500 miles apart in the very early 1800's; the correct son had extensive documentation for generations, while the incorrect one had no documentation).

"Community" only works when the members are devoted to accuracy. Too many trees are compiled to "prove" ancestry from someone far in the past, with no care about accuracy.

I totally agree, @DaveBrt, about the false tree entries at Family Search. I use the site, but in terms of accuracy I corrected a family line at the point of my 3g grandparents in about 2020 and entered the reasons based on research facts. In 2022 I went back and someone had reversed it to the FALSE way again. Hopeless.

 

[lupaglupa]

I don't use Family Search because there seems no way to wall off other people's work from your own. My trees at Ancestry are private and only I work on them.

 

[SWS]

I've only been seriously pursuing genealogy for a short time and yet I feel I've made a lot of progress in avoiding the claims that either seem 'too good to be true' or are plain incorrect/lacking sources. I only ever add ancestors/relatives manually into my Ancestry (I prefer the format) tree after some outside investigation/corroboration.

 

[lupaglupa]

I've only been seriously pursuing genealogy for a short time and yet I feel I've made a lot of progress in avoiding the claims that either seem 'too good to be true' or are plain incorrect/lacking sources. I only ever add ancestors/relatives manually into my Ancestry (I prefer the format) tree after some outside investigation/corroboration.

This is the way.

 

[SWS]

This is the way.

It can be painstaking but it satisfies my innate fastidiousness. Most of all I want to do right by those who came before me.

And I must have been blessed by the genealogy gods this morning for expressing such thoughts, because today I found pictures of my Polish great-grandparents in addition to some hand-written notes on the subject of family history by my grandma and cousin. I thought I'd never know what they looked like. I've been laboring to understand and pinpoint this elusive side to my tree for over a year and having this stuff in the beginning would've been of considerable help, though I've made good independent progress, though the notes might be invaluable in solving some remaining questions. It just amazes me that sometimes people never quite realize or even know what they have in a box or folder in a closet or attic.